I think it is common sense since the beginning of time, that homosexuality = death of a tribe/race/nation. In most cultures, men who exhibited homosexual behavior were driven out, or relegated to living with the women and doing women's tasks, like cooking and cleaning. Basically, they penned them in socially, so they were not a threat to the survival of their people.
Civilizations historically had a role specifically reserved for homosexual men, that is, as eunuchs. Otherwise, without active Satanic subversion, gay men would generally keep to themselves and/or actually marry and have children while suppressing their same-sex attraction. Although in the case of Roman Catholics, it inevitably led to homos selecting the clergy as their social role and career.
But the spread of homosexuality today via propaganda and grooming isn't the main threat to birth rates in developed countries. It's heterosexual men's T levels lowering and exhibiting submissive beta/soy boy behaviors, combined with women rendered incapable of being housewives and mothers thanks to feminism and hormone-altering medication.
I think your entire post here was absolutely right. I've not been to South Korea (though I have been to Japan) but from everything I read and hear from others, it is even much further down the road to just absolute lifelessness than America or Western Europe. South Korea is the absolute cutting edge of corporate liberal modernist secular dystopia. I recall reading a long article in 2021 in The Guardian on South Korea's plan to develop a contactless society, deliberately minimizing all human interactions in public. I mean, America deliberately minimized human interaction as well during the pandemic, but this was supposed to be on a much greater level; we're talking about permanent changes. I can easily find that article again.
For one thing, the fertility rate in South Korea has once again broken its own record for lowest national fertility rate in human history. But another thing in this article to note is just the absolutely mind-boggling efforts of liberal propaganda. The reason for low birth rates is....because we need more feminism! Conservatives are to blame for low birth rates and "gender equality" is the solution, that is directly argued in this article.
If you see a progressive outlet like the New York Times going into maximum overdrive to defend a country's progressivism no matter what the results, then you know that country is particularly important for the narrative. South Korea must be a really big long-term investment for them.
If you're familiar with the utterly toxic and bitter demographic that are K-Pop fans, and K-Pop and Korean pop culture in general, then you would notice that South Korea must be serving an exceptional role for globohomo. It's not normal for an entire fanbase of a pop genre to be instant useful idiots for the globalists. It's like K-Pop is created specifically to herd in feminists across the Internet.
You're spot on with the description of maximum overdrive concerning feminist and other woke propaganda in South Korea, to the point that propaganda articles are straight up being illogical, confusing cause and effect, e.g., blaming conservative norms and the patriarchy for the lowering of birth rates and introducing feminism as the solution. Another golden example is the topsy-turvy statement from the "minister of gender equality" complaining that women in the ROK military are being asked to experience the same disadvantages as the men.
This is the same script for white liberal women that we're all too familiar with, now oriented towards an East Asian country, slowly and systematically reproducing the same godless, rootless, materialist monoculture. And this is where South Korea is starting to diverge from Japan. Globohomo agendas are still being promoted in the latter country, but there is still resistance from the Japanese towards Western mainstream media in contrast to SoKors completely handing themselves over to woke outlets.
Case in point, the BBC just published a rant over Japan's continued ethnic homogeneity and closed borders. The article is complete comedy gold which PJW refutes in his video.
Just about any time Korean Reunification is hypothesized about, it is assumed that the unification would occur on South Korea's terms, with the North joining the South like East Germany joining West. But while I think you are probably right that reunification is out of the question for many years still, ultimately the demographic collapse of South Korea might actually make it happen on North Korean terms. What I'm envisioning here is North Korean power growing in relation to South Korean in the long term because of southern aging and population decline. But for that to really come into effect to the necessary extent will still take decades, by which time the US and others may have already managed to implement other plans for North Korea. Time will tell.
I've read plenty of literature about Korean reunification, South Korean domestic & foreign policy, and North Korea's economic conditions. Even mainstream think tanks like RAND have concluded that it's not feasible anymore to simply have South Korea absorb the North, Kim Jong-un or not. But the only alternative often presented is a resumption of the Korean War with an outcome of either side vanquishing the other. And that's assuming it won't spark World War III.
I disagree however with your sentiment that South Korea's demographic collapse will flip the tables and give North Korea complete leverage. In fact, the opposite situation is the reality since the 90s with the Kim dynasty's complete control over the nation barely preventing an administrative
collapse of the North and a possible partition between China and South Korea.
And even if Korean reunification happens tomorrow and it works, a unified Korea will massively disrupt the balance of power surrounding it. This is what happens when your neighbors are Japan, China and Russia; and the United States has a huge vested interest in your foreign policy. United Korea staying pro-US (and possibly hosting US troops at its northern half) will put China and Russia in high alert. If the opposite happens and Korea sides with China, Japan will decide to fully remilitarize. And imagine the further complications if the unified Korean government keeps the nukes.
The most logical approach then is for Korea to have a neutral foreign policy with everyone else respecting its autonomy. But I doubt that China, Japan and the US would simply let unified Korea bring out its potential clout.
Which leaves the most realistic approach being of North Korea opening up to the world and reforming, but with no intention of unifying with the South let alone falling into US influence. NK makes peace with SK and demilitarize, but it stays an ally of China and Russia. And it cannot give up its nukes no matter what, which is its biggest leverage in diplomacy especially with the USA.